Arguing with liberals, atheists like debating signposts
January 04, 2014 11:30 PM | 1607 views | 4 4 comments | 14 14 recommendations | email to a friend | print
DEAR EDITOR:

I knew this time of year is a sort of news vacuum, and it was proved yet again when I saw responses to my recent letter to the editor.

Per Ann Coulter’s dictum, I never, or seldom anyway, argue with liberals. It’s as fruitful as debating signposts. And atheists? It goes doubly. And how does one possibly respond to an assertion that putting gay men in charge of young Boy Scouts on a camping trip is a good idea?

The thing speaks for itself — res ipsa loquitur. Foxes guarding hens comes to mind.

As for the Civil Rights issue someone mentioned, I was in the forefront of that struggle in the early 1960s. All the calumny of the Right was directed at me then, and it wasn’t pretty. I must say that if I had known then how race would become an industry instead of a quest for equal rights, I might have been much more hesitant.

And martyrdom? It may be down the road apiece, but if the present trends are not redirected, it will most definitely come. A good clue to that appears in Thursday’s MDJ, where the AP reported one of the “Duck Dynasty” people was interviewed. He refused to take the liberal press bait, so he’s off the hook, which means, in no uncertain terms, that if you are in the public eye and are asked “controversial” questions — bait — you had better give either the “right” answer, or no answer. A “wrong” answer and you can expect a firestorm, censure and career doom. That, my friends, is not freedom.

I will reiterate: liberalism/progressivism is a toxic, poisonous brew. The MDJ pages, yet again, prove this point in the unspeakably inane and Orwellian column of Froma Harrop, wherein she posits, using another idiot lib’s “study” that Obama is a great economic mind!

This doesn’t just stretch credulity, it stands it on its head, mocks it and obliterates it! Can she possibly think that the populace hasn’t noticed the great Obama-like economic successes brought about in locales such as Detroit, Birmingham, Illinois and any other city or state where Democrats have been in charge? “Risible” is far too mild a description for her and her fellow-traveling revisionists.

Anyway, thanks for the space. Being a target of thinking-impaired liberals is not a burden, but a privilege.

Harry Hagan

West Cobb

Comments
(4)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
EMBuckner
|
January 05, 2014
Harry Hagan counts it a privilege to be countered by thoughtful, wiser than he is, liberals or atheists, and far be it from me to disappoint him. If he really wants argument--he doesn't, of course--he'd try actually stating counter-arguments or citing data that supports his position. Instead he engages in nothing more than empty name-calling or sarcasm. For example, take his comments on Froma Harrop's report in re Obama having the best economic record of any modern president. She cited an expert and actual data (since I'm not an economist myself I cannot judge with certainty how credible what she cites is). But Harry Hagan counters this not at all--he just dismisses it airily, with the only thing approaching counterfactual data a list of locales that have had economic woes. But of course at any point in American history, under any president of any party, there have been locales with such woes, scandals and bankruptcies. Overall data, though, are beneath Hagan.

And he certainly offers no counter-argument at all to atheism or to the need for secularism in government, for the protection of his religious liberty and mine. I'd love to have a public, even-handed debate with Mr. Hagan on that subject. --Ed Buckner
KFO
|
January 06, 2014
Ed,

I'm accustomed to such baseless attacks from readers like Harry who prefer Mel Fein's fact-free screeds or Ann Coulter's viciousness to well reasoned and presented arguments supported by facts and data. See my most recent column for a good example.

It's sad but I explained this pervasive problem among conservatives some week back in my epistemic closure column. Long story short, Harry doesn't want to consider facts.

Kevin Foley
EMBuckner
|
January 06, 2014
Kevin Foley, who has repeatedly demonstrated that he can both think and write, does me the honor of commenting on my comment--and I thank him for it. Harry Hagan does not, as Foley wrote, have any interest in facts or actual debate, written or oral. I'd be delighted to debate Hagan or to watch a debate between Foley and Hagan, but Hagan will never agree to actual debate. He's much more secure with using the space afforded him for loud squeals than genuine idea-testing.
KFO
|
January 05, 2014
Harry, I'll be happy to debate any issue with you anytime and anyplace you name. We'll see who comes prepared with facts to support his arguments and who doesn't.

That's why you really don't want to discuss politics with liberals. The inconvenient facts never agree with your prejudices or ignorance and it drives guys like you nuts.

See my column about epistemic closure if you really want to understand what's troubling you.

*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides